ARBITRATION COURT

Evening Star, Issue 19800, 25 February 1928, Page 6

ARBITRATION COURT

INTERPRETATION OF AWARDS The Arbitration Court has delivered its decision in the case in which it was asked tc give an interpretation of a clause iu the New Zealand Tea Rooms and Restaurant Employees’ Award, which states; — “ Employees who work on Boxing Day, New Year’s Day, Easter Monday, Sovereign’s Birthday, or Labor Day shall be paid time and a-half rates for such work. Time and a-half rates ’ shall mean the proportionate daily wage and board and lodging allowance ordinarily payable and included in the weekly wage, plus an additional amount equal to 60 per cent, of such proportionate daily wage and allowance. The question which arose was whether time and a-half rates for work done on any of the specified days should be calculated on wages ordinarily paid, or on full pay as defined in clause 4 (e) of the award. The ruling of the court is as follows:—“In the case in question, the tea room was open for business, and meals were supplied to the members of the staff who were on duty. The clause refers to a board and lodging allowance, but the practice for many years under allied trade awards has been to regard the actual supply of meals as equivalent to the payment of a board allowance in cash. In view of the universal nature of this praetdoe, it must be assumed that the intention of the Conciliation Council was that the clause should receive the customary interpretation that had been given to "it in the other awards. In the opinion of the court the workers in question were entitled to be paid for each holiday on the basis of 50 per cent, of 1 full pay ’ as defined in clause 4 (e), in addition to their weekly wages.” The court has also delivered its decision in the case in which it was asked for an interpretation of a clauso in the New Zealand Licensed Hotel EmploA’oes' Award, which states:— “On the day of the holiday as hereinbefore provided an employer may require any worker Tn his employment to perform the work usually performed by the worker away on his or her holiday, or in cases of emergency for not longer than one day, at the same rate of wages as is fixed for his or her own department.” The question to be decided was whether an employer could require any worker in his employ to relieve during any week two or more higher paid workers on the days of their weekly holidays at the same rate of wages as was fixed for the relieving worker’s department. The court has ruled in the affirmative, its decision stating: “The restriction as to one day only in each week applies in cases of emergency, and not to the regular relieving of other members of the staff on their respective days off. In order to limit the operation of the clause as contended for by the union, the wording of the clause would have to he amended so as to make it clear that only one worker receiving a higher rate of pay might be relieved in each week for his or her day off, unless the proportionate higher rate were paid for succeeding days. Such a provision is made in the Dominion Private Hotels Award.